Search Forums

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Why is Pedophilia Categorized as a Disorder?

Since you've confirmed that you think harm is a valid consideration to make regarding disorders, do you now retract your argument that "mental disorder should not be identified by whether acting on the mental process causes harm"?

Re: Why is Pedophilia Categorized as a Disorder?

Originally Posted by futureboy

Since you've confirmed that you think harm is a valid consideration to make regarding disorders, do you now retract your argument that "mental disorder should not be identified by whether acting on the mental process causes harm"?

In particular, the Cantor guy studying pedophiles seems extremely credible and authoritative. Here's a different link to extended info:

Dr James Cantor, of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, Canada, spends much of his time exploring the brains of paedophiles using MRI scans. He has reached a startling and controversial conclusion.

"Paedophilia is a sexual orientation," he says. "Paedophilia is something that we are essentially born with, does not appear to change over time and it's as core to our being as any other sexual orientation is."

Cantor found that the brains of the paedophiles he studied were wired differently to non-paedophiles - something he describes as effectively a "cross-wiring" of the brain. "It's as if, in these people, when they perceive a child, it's triggering the sexual instincts instead of triggering the nurturing instincts," he says. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34858350

I don't recognize the APA as a trusted authority on much of anything, especially the subject of sexual orientation, so your reliance on them doesn't carry any weight here.

Last edited by evensaul; December 19th, 2018 at 03:19 PM.

"If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

Re: Why is Pedophilia Categorized as a Disorder?

Originally Posted by futureboy

This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Further, the way you point out that it was "simply" decided by "a single" vote of the APA community, seems to imply that there's something wrong with that.

Well, I get you don't like my conclusions and that's fine, but you have yet to actually support my making "gross misrepresentations".

I would be happy to let ODN staff adjudicate and I will abide with whatever decision they make whether I have supported the points on my end of the debate. Admittedly, I did get a couple points wrong earlier in the thread regarding your source, but I don't think it rises to the level of negating my side of the debate nor justifies your accusation.

In particular, the Cantor guy studying pedophiles seems extremely credible and authoritative. Here's a different link to extended info:

Dr James Cantor, of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, Canada, spends much of his time exploring the brains of paedophiles using MRI scans. He has reached a startling and controversial conclusion.

"Paedophilia is a sexual orientation," he says. "Paedophilia is something that we are essentially born with, does not appear to change over time and it's as core to our being as any other sexual orientation is."

Cantor found that the brains of the paedophiles he studied were wired differently to non-paedophiles - something he describes as effectively a "cross-wiring" of the brain. "It's as if, in these people, when they perceive a child, it's triggering the sexual instincts instead of triggering the nurturing instincts," he says. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34858350

I don't recognize the APA as a trusted authority on much of anything, especially the subject of sexual orientation, so your reliance on them doesn't carry any weight here.

You state that you reject both my rejections, plural, of your support that paedophilia is a sexual orientation, but only attempt to support why one rejection is rejected - Cantor. You did not provide any support for why the rejection of your PsychToday support should be rejected. It is therefore still rejected as support that paedophilia is a sexual orientation. So you're left with just Cantor.

Regarding Cantor, you are taking the opinion of one specialist, who clearly states that paedophile brains are different from all other brains, as a more valid definition of sexual orientations than the entire APA, just because you don't like the APA? Well unfortunately, that's your own problem. Having a negative opinion of the APA doesn't change the fact that it is demonstrably a more valid source of a definition of sexual orientations than a single person who has made statements which you can twist into tenuous support of your argument that paedophilia is actually a sexual orientation.

Cantor's statements about paedophilia are made in the context of how the function of attraction within the brain of a paedophile is the result of faulty wiring which leads to the attraction being as involuntary as it is for non-paedophiles (ie: everyone else who has a normal brain and has a sexual orientation based on gender). By relying on Cantor as your support for paedophilia being a sexual orientation, you are essentially saying that sexual orientations are defined as "attraction based on gender, except when someone's brain wiring gets crossed and the attraction is based on age because their faulty brain is triggering a sexual instinct when it should instead be triggering a nurturing instinct". Unfortunately, providing a single expert's opinion on such a ridiculous re-definition doesn't outweigh the vast majority of sexual orientation being defined as "attraction based on gender".

I understand what Cantor is saying about how people with faulty brains not really able to stop their brains from triggering sexual instincts instead of nurturing instincts. However, just because something is as core to our being as a sexual orientation, doesn't mean it gets to be considered one, especially if it's the result of an abnormality. Cantor's work definitely supports that paedophile's attraction based on age is likely the result of an unchangeable abnormality in the brain, and that this should certainly be considered when we, as a society, decide how to deal with and treat paedophiles, but that doesn't justify changing the definition of sexual orientations from being based on gender to being based on gender but also sometimes on age when someone's brain wiring is messed up.

But back to the debate about the harm done by paedophilia and whether it warrants being classified as a disorder:

Originally Posted by evensaul

Because that is what the APA is doing to define a mental disorder. Read post #1.

And I already explained how it's not hanging on only the legal definition, but also general ethical principles common to most societies. The fact that there's a point about someone able to give legal consent only indicates that the principle behind both is the same: someone younger than what our society determines is the age of consent is not able to give consent, and therefore someone who has sexual desires towards them is considered by our society to have a disorder. If our society determined a different age based on a change in our ethical principles, then the result would be that both the law and the definition would change. So again, it's not "hanging" on the law - it's a simple expression of what our society determines to be ethical conduct when considering a person's ability to consent to things at different ages.

Originally Posted by evensaul

Again, what if there is no act, and the pedophile does not believe he would cause distress or injury? Why should that person be categorized as having a mental disorder?

Because having people walking around sexualising children is not something our society wants to happen. Again, just ask yourself: do you think it's good for a society to have individuals who sexualize children and have sexual desires towards children? Would you feel comfortable if you had a child and found out that someone around them is thinking about them sexually - even if you had the guarantee that they'd never act on that desire (which there isn't)?

Further, the fact that the paedophile doesn't act is an admission that they at least understand that the society they are in doesn't see their desire as something acceptable, and also an understanding of why that is. This comports with the first bullet-point of the APA's definition. Further, their irrational disagreement with, or inability to understand the fact that acting on their desire would cause distress or injury is, to most people, enough to classify them as having a disorder.

Originally Posted by evensaul

Don't you think that psychiatric evaluations and classifications should be independent of what the law says?

They are.

Originally Posted by evensaul

The problem is that according to logic you agree with, the person didn't have a mental disorder while in the US, and then suddenly does at the conclusion of the flight. If that makes sense to you, then tell me why you're okay with that.

Again, I'm not saying that "the person didn't have a mental disorder while in the US, and then suddenly does". I'm saying that the person is classified differently as having a mental disorder or not by different societies. The fact that the person is travelling doesn't matter, since they were already classified as having a disorder before entering the location which classified them as such. It's really simple: different places have different societies and, as a result, different views on how to classify people based on their proclivities. This is not a problem.

Do you have an issue with different places having different laws on when a person is considered an adult? Now you're here, and you're an adult, but then you go there, and you're no longer an adult! Oh noes!

Originally Posted by evensaul

Okay, you got me there. Well done. So let's change it to a few beers before driving home. I want to go out with friends, have some drinks, and drive myself home. I really like the feeling of being inebriated, and the social fun that goes with it. I'm not an alcoholic, but I enjoy a good time. I'd drink enough to be over the legal limit and the law says I would be a danger to other people. I don't think I would be a danger to others because I drive real well under the influence of alcohol, but I decide not to go out because I don't want to get arrested. Does all that mean that I have a mental disorder? If yes, explain. If not, why not?

Your desire to drink enough to feel good and still be able to drive according to you is probably not in the same category as what we're discussing here. For one, many people probably share your opinion, so already theres a big difference with regard to the first bullet-point. Also, I'd point out that, with your example, the desire itself is quite different, as there are varying degrees of desire. Something like wanting to have a good time in the specific way that you describe is definitely not on the same scale as the sexual desire a paedophile has towards children. What you describe is more in the range of opinion than an actual urge.

Originally Posted by evensaul

The latter.I'm talking about someone who does NOT think it is a bad thing and doesn't think he would be causing harm, but chooses not to act.

Again, choosing not to act is an admission of understanding that it's an issue if they were to act, and therefore also an understanding of the ethical reasons behind why it's an issue, regardless of whether they agree with the ethics.

Depending on the level of distress as described by the first bullet-point, he may not be doing that okay.

Originally Posted by evensaul

A problem? Maybe. A mental disorder? No. We all really want to do things we just can't do because of the risks involved. I really want to drive 150mph, skydive and experience what its like to get away with a major jewel heist, but those are all pretty darn risky. Do any of those indicate a mental disorder? I don't think so.

Again, varying degrees of desire. You say you have the desire to skydive. But is that really the same as a paedophile's desire to have sex with children? Do you think about it every time you see an airplane?

Re: Why is Pedophilia Categorized as a Disorder?

Thanks for quoting some of my earlier arguments. They've helped me think about the issue of harm again. I was starting to lean towards your way of thinking, but those arguments I gave are pretty solid. So, I have to continue with the position that the possibility of causing harm probably shouldn't be a weighed very heavily, if at all, when debating whether something is a mental disorder. Thanks for your help.

But if we consider harm as a factor, shouldn't we consider not just possible harm to an individual, but also possible harm to the greater society? (Dio saw what is coming. Do you? Are you ready to go there?)

You wrote "However, just because something is as core to our being as a sexual orientation, doesn't mean it gets to be considered one, especially if it's the result of an abnormality." People might say the same thing about homosexuality. It is abnormal. For a small percentage of the population, the brain works differently, triggering sexual attraction to people of the same sex.

You also wrote: "And I already explained how it's not hanging on only the legal definition, but also general ethical principles common to most societies." Most societies think there is something wrong with homosexuals. Does that make them right? Again, this is nothing more than an appeal to popularity on your part.

"If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

Re: Why is Pedophilia Categorized as a Disorder?

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Well, I get you don't like my conclusions and that's fine, but you have yet to actually support my making "gross misrepresentations".

I never said I didn't like your conclusions, so it's best you don't try to put words in my mouth. Regarding your claim that I have not supported that you misrepresented the reasoning behind the decision to change the classification of homosexuality, I have already offered it. I have repeatedly pointed out how your use of language has attempted to phrase the change and how it took place as not being the result of consideration of available evidence by experts in the field, but the result of public pressure. You have also repeatedly used stlyistic language, rather than actual arguments, in order to try to discredit or invalidate the decision to change the classification of homosexuality. In all instances, I addressed your statements and explained why they were flat-out wrong, or simply failed as actual support.

If you really want to go over them again, so be it.

Your agreement with evensaul from the get-go and phrasing of how it took place makes it pretty clear:
Evensaul #121: "APA has folded to activism when the heat became too great."
LK #127: "When an organization changes its stance on something, some people are quick to assume that it has "folded" under pressure."
You #128: "there is enough evidence to show it [public pressure] changing homosexuality from a disorder to not being one"

When I pointed that out to you, your response was to provide the full statement which was cut off (the reason it was cut off was because it's irrelevant to your statement regarding the change ), and to parrot Phil Hickey's opinion blog post.

Again, here are some examples, which have all been demonstrated to be misrepresentations of the reasoning behind the decision to change the classification of homosexuality:
"No new studies or other information was utilized"
"no new studies used to base changing DSM on homosexuality classification"
"changing homosexuality from a disorder to not being one, was not based on scientific study/research/etc"

Here's another - bold added for emphasis:

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Should DSM be based on scientific study or opinions/majority vote without regard to study, since in this case no new information was presented for this "democratic decision"?

My response:
Again, the decision wasn't made without regard to any studies. Did you not read the part where I clearly referenced the panel which had actual psychiatrists who had done actual studies?
And really, you need to stop this "no new studies" nonsense. There were studies which had been done, and those studies were considered as part of the decision-making process. One could easay that, since the panel discussions were the first time the studies were seriously considered, they were "new".

And some more...

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Can you support that disorders in DSM are typically just voted into/out of existence???

This is little more than a shifting of the burden. The lead-up to the decision involved members of the APA and its board having multiple panel discussions over the course of at least two years before the Nomenclature dept (who else?) updated the definition, and later the APA allowed its members to vote on whether to keep it definition. They kept it, and so it remained without issues or protest. You are the one who is trying to cast a negative or invalid light onto how the decision was made. You need to support your assertion that there was something wrong with how the decision was made.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

It got taken out roughly the same way it got in. (implying by public opinion rather than available evidence and discussion/debate by panel of experts)

Actually no, there were studies and scientific opinions available to those making the decision to remove it. What studies can you cite which were justification for it being included?

Originally Posted by Belthazor

So, it appears what is in/out of DSM isn't necessarily based in studies/evidence/etc..

It may appear that way to you, but I've already supported that there were studies, evidence, and expert opinions available to those making the decision.

So again, making misrepresentations of the facts and using stylistical language tactics (referring to no new studies or few studies at all as if that's an issue without supporting that it's an issue, putting the Nomenclature Committee in scare-quotes as if that somehow questions the validity of them changing the definition even though that's literally their job, putting exclamation marks EVERYWHERE) does not constitute actual support for your argument that there was anything wrong with the reasoning behind the decision to change the classification of homosexuality.

As I've repeatedly explained (and what LK pointed out from the very beginning), just because there were protests putting pressure on the APA to get over the social taboos of the time and open a discussion about homosexuality, that doesn't mean that the actual final decision wasn't based on actual scientific studies, empirical evidence, and the opinion of experts in the field.

Originally Posted by Belthazor

My apologies, I meant no offense.

I didn't express any offense. Again, it's best if you don't try to put words in my mouth.

According to the American Psychiatric Association, until 1974 homosexuality was a mental illness. Freud had alluded to homosexuality numerous times in his writings, and had concluded that paranoia and homosexuality were inseparable. Other psychiatrists wrote copiously on the subject, and homosexuality was “treated” on a wide basis. There was little or no suggestion within the psychiatric community that homosexuality might be conceptualized as anything other than a mental illness that needed to be treated. And, of course, homosexuality was listed as a mental illness in DSM-II. (The DSM – Diagnostic and Statistical Manual – is the APA’s standard classification of their so-called mental disorders, and is used by many mental health workers in the USA and other countries.)

Then in 1970 gay activists protested against the APA convention in San Francisco. These scenes were repeated in 1971, and as people came out of the “closet” and felt empowered politically and socially, the APA directorate became increasingly uncomfortable with their stance. In 1973 the APA’s nomenclature task force recommended that homosexuality be declared normal. The trustees were not prepared to go that far, but they did vote to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses by a vote of 13 to 0, with 2 abstentions. This decision was confirmed by a vote of the APA membership, and homosexuality was no longer listed in the seventh edition of DSM-II, which was issued in 1974.

What’s noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough. There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change. Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss. They gained a voice and began to make themselves heard. And the APA reacted with truly astonishing speed. And with good reason. They realized intuitively that a protracted battle would have drawn increasing attention to the spurious nature of their entire taxonomy. So they quickly “cut loose” the gay community and forestalled any radical scrutiny of the DSM system generally.

The APA claimed that they made the change because new research showed that most homosexual people were content with their sexual orientation, and that as a group, they appeared to be as well-adjusted as heterosexual people. I suggest, however, that these research findings were simply the APA’s face-saver. For centuries, perhaps millennia, homosexual people had clung to their sexual orientation despite the most severe persecution and vilification, including imprisonment and death. Wouldn’t this suggest that they were happy with their orientation? Do we need research to confirm this? And if we do, shouldn’t we also need research to confirm that heterosexual people are happy with their orientation? And if poor adjustment is critical to a diagnosis of mental illness, where was the evidence of this that justified making homosexuality a mental illness in the first place?

Also noteworthy is the fact that the vote of the membership was by no means unanimous. Only about 55% of the members who voted favored the change.

Of course, the APA put the best spin they could on these events. The fact is that they altered their taxonomy because of intense pressure from the gay community, but they claimed that the change was prompted by research findings.

So all the people who had this terrible “illness” were “cured” overnight – by a vote! I remember as a boy reading of the United Nations World Health Organization’s decision to eradicate smallpox. This was in 1967, and by 1977, after a truly staggering amount of work, the disease was a thing of the past. Why didn’t they just take a vote? Because smallpox is a real illness. The human problems listed in DSM are not. It’s that simple. You can say that geese are swans – but in reality they’re still geese.

The overall point being that the APA’s taxonomy is nothing more than self-serving nonsense. Real illnesses are not banished by voting or by fiat, but by valid science and hard work. There are no mental illnesses. Rather, there are people. We have problems; we have orientations; we have habits; we have perspectives. Sometimes we do well, other times we make a mess of things. We are complicated. Our feelings fluctuate with our circumstances, from the depths of despondency to the pinnacles of bliss. And perhaps, most of all, we are individuals. DSM’s facile and self-serving attempt to medicalize human problems is an institutionalized insult to human dignity. The homosexual community has managed to liberate themselves from psychiatric oppression. But there are millions of people worldwide who are still being damaged, stigmatized, and disempowered by this pernicious system to this day.

Last edited by evensaul; December 20th, 2018 at 08:39 AM.

"If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

Re: Why is Pedophilia Categorized as a Disorder?

Originally Posted by evensaul

I was starting to lean towards your way of thinking, but those arguments I gave are pretty solid. So, I have to continue with the position that the possibility of causing harm probably shouldn't be a weighed very heavily, if at all, when debating whether something is a mental disorder. Thanks for your help.

A clever quip indeed, but if you choose to ignore rebuttals of your statements, they remain rebutted until you provide valid responses. Therefore, your "position that the possibility of causing harm probably shouldn't be a weighed very heavily, if at all" is not supported. Continuing to forward that position is a violation of the rules. I'd recommend spending more time actually responding to rebuttals of your arguments than trying to make clever quips.

Originally Posted by evensaul

But if we consider harm as a factor, shouldn't we consider not just possible harm to an individual, but also possible harm to the greater society? (Dio saw what is coming. Do you? Are you ready to go there?)

You are free to make any arguments you wish and provide support for them.

Originally Posted by evensaul

People might say the same thing about homosexuality. It is abnormal.

Please support or retract this claim. I'll also point out that not even Dr. Cantor thinks homosexuality is abnormal. In the BBC article you linked, he clearly states that "the brains of the paedophiles he studied were wired differently to non-paedophiles". Since it is this cross-wiring which is recognized as the abnormality, and "non-paedophiles" includes heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, then homosexuals' brains are not cross-wired. There is a clear distinction between the people whose brains trigger the normal nurturing instinct, and those whose brains trigger a sexual instinct instead. Homosexuals are part of the former.

Originally Posted by evensaul

For a small percentage of the population, the brain works differently, triggering sexual attraction to people of the same sex.

Again, even Dr. Cantor doesn't hold this position. Please support or retract it.

Originally Posted by evensaul

You also wrote: "And I already explained how it's not hanging on only the legal definition, but also general ethical principles common to most societies." Most societies think there is something wrong with homosexuals. Does that make them right? Again, this is nothing more than an appeal to popularity on your part.

First of all, please support or retract your statement that "most societies think there is something wrong with homosexuals". While it's true that societies contain people who think there is something wrong with homosexuals, to say that this is a reflection of the society as a whole is nonsense.

Further, since your claim harm caused by a condition should not be considered remains without support, one need only point to the glaring difference in the harm caused by homosexuality (none) vs. the harm caused by paedophilia (great). This difference further invalidates your comparison between them.

Re: Why is Pedophilia Categorized as a Disorder?

Originally Posted by futureboy

Please support or retract this claim.

Here's what I said: "People might say the same thing about homosexuality. It is abnormal. For a small percentage of the population, the brain works differently, triggering sexual attraction to people of the same sex."

Homosexuals represent, at most, about 10% of the population. Perhaps only 2%. That makes them abnormal or aberrant from the norm. Sexual attraction is the result of a brain signal. So homosexuals must be influenced by a brain signal that is different from the one for heterosexuals. Which part of the foregoing do you believe is factually or logically wrong?

If we're going to have a dialogue, then you're going to have to do more than just demand support for every jot and tittle. Otherwise, I'll just ignore you.

"If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

Re: Why is Pedophilia Categorized as a Disorder?

Originally Posted by evensaul

Homosexuals represent, at most, about 10% of the population. Perhaps only 2%. That makes them abnormal or aberrant from the norm. Sexual attraction is the result of a brain signal. So homosexuals are influenced by a brain signal that is different from the one for heterosexuals. Which part of the foregoing to you believe is factually wrong?

You're just re-stating your claim with additional detail, which does nothing to refute my statement. Here it is again: In the BBC article you linked, he clearly states that "the brains of the paedophiles he studied were wired differently to non-paedophiles". Since it is this cross-wiring which is recognized as the abnormality, and "non-paedophiles" includes heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, then homosexuals' brains are not cross-wired. There is a clear distinction between the people whose brains trigger the normal nurturing instinct, and those whose brains trigger a sexual instinct instead. Homosexuals are part of the former.

Again, the brain abnormality in question for paedophiles (the triggering of a sexual instinct when it should be a nurturing instinct) excludes homosexuals, so your comparison fails. Since sexual attraction based on gender is identified within the function of a normal brain, as per Dr. Canton (paedophiles vs. non-paedophiles), there is nothing abnormal about people being attracted to different genders than others.

Originally Posted by evensaul

If we're going to have a dialogue, then you're going to have to do more than just demand support for every jot and tittle. Otherwise, I'll just ignore you.

And I could likewise say that, if we are going to have a dialogue, then you're going to have to actually respond to rebuttals to your arguments (you know, respond, like in a real dialogue?). But you do as you wish. If you choose to ignore rebuttals to your arguments, then you abandon them for lack of support.

Re: Why is Pedophilia Categorized as a Disorder?

Make all the threats you want. I've supported that homosexuality cannot be considered abnormal in the same was as paedophilia, so your comparison fails.
Asking whether I believe your slightly-more-detailed expression of the same claim is irrelevant.

And, since you now want to set aside the BBC article, does that mean you retract your claim that paedophilia is a sexual orientation?